We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Applications for leave to appeal dismissed - 11 August 2016

36962 NAV Canada v. Assessor of Area #01 - Capital, Assessor of Area #15 - Fraser Valley, Assessor of Area #17 - Penticton, Assessor of Area #21 - Nelson/Trail, District of North Saanich

- and -

Property Assessment Appeal Board

(B.C.)

Municipal law – Taxation – Property assessments

The Property Assessment Appeal Board was asked to assess five properties leased by NAV Canada, which has a legislated monopoly on the provision of civil air navigation services in Canada. The use of the leased properties is restricted to the provision of civil air navigation services by agreements between the Federal Crown, NAV Canada, and the property owners, and the rents are nominal. The Board applied Southam and Pacific Newspaper Group Inc. v. British Columbia (Assessor of Area No. 14 – Surrey/White Rock), 2008 BCCA 284, and Pacific Newspaper Group Inc. v. British Columbia (Assessor of Area No. 14 – Surrey/White Rock), 2008 BCCA 284. Finding no competitive and open market, the Board assessed each property at a nominal value. The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed an appeal by stated case under the Assessment Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 20, s. 65. A five-member panel of the Court of Appeal overruled Southam and applied Montreal v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, [1952] D.L.R. 81 (J.C.P.C.), aff’g [1950] S.C.R. 220. It held that the Board had erred in law in finding that the limitations on the properties left them valueless, in determining their market value according to the business carried out on the properties, and by misinterpreting or misapplying s. 19(5) of the Assessment Act. It remitted the matter to the Board for reconsideration in light of these reasons. The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal of British Columbia allowed the appeal.

This application stems from two incidents, both involving reports that Mr. Green had been stopping traffic from coming in and out of the premises of his former employer, and yelling at people. In the first incident, matters progressed to the point where Mr. Green ran up to the officer, yelling and cursing. The officer reported asking Mr. Green to back up, but said that Mr. Green instead advanced and put his face so close to the officer’s that their noses touched. Mr. Green was arrested for assaulting a police officer, taken to the local RCMP detachment, and released with a notice to appear and an undertaking. Mr. Green denied that his face touched the officer’s. In the second incident, Mr. Green refused to identify himself. When he began to walk onto the highway, an officer grabbed him by his backpack for his own safety and that of the motorists in oncoming traffic. Mr. Green clenched his fists, swore at the officer, and tried to break free. He said that he did not recall there being oncoming traffic. He was arrested for causing a disturbance by disrupting traffic and stopping vehicles. When he refused to sign an undertaking with a condition that he not attend at the premises of his former employer and indicated that he would return to continue his protest if released, he was held overnight and released in the morning.

The Crown ultimately decided not to proceed with the charges. Mr. Green filed a claim for damages arising from what he characterized as his illegal arrest and false imprisonment by the RCMP. The Respondents brought a motion for summary judgment. The motions judge granted the motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Green’s appeal.

36968 Mary Dom v. Sara Kloos

(Ont.)

Mortgages – Laches – Validity of mortgage

The applicant’s son granted to the applicant a second mortgage on his residential property, allegedly in return for money she had advanced to him over the years. The applicant’s son also borrowed significant sums of money from the respondent and granted her mortgages on the same property. The respondent’s mortgage stood in third place on title, subordinate to a first mortgage to a bank and the applicant’s mortgage. The applicant’s son did not make any payment to the respondent on her mortgage.

The respondent sued the applicant’s son for possession and judgment with respect to the mortgage and obtained a default judgment against him. The property subject to the mortgage was sold soon after the judgment. To permit the sale, a judge of the Superior Court ordered a discharge of the two mortgages and payment of the funds in dispute into court, and referred the determination of mortgage validity to a master. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal.

36898 Mazda Canada Inc. v. Lise Fortin

(Que.)

Consumer protection – Product liability

This case concerns a class action regarding the applicant’s liability in relation to the locking mechanism of Mazda 3 vehicles from model years 2004 to 2007. On June 3, 2010, the Superior Court authorized a class action alleging (i) a defect in design, (ii) lateness and deficiencies in the program for correcting this defect, (iii) false or erroneous representations regarding the quality of the vehicles at issue and (iv) failure to mention an important fact regarding a security feature. On January 23, 2013, the Superior Court granted a motion for severance so that arguments on liability would be heard prior to and separate from the hearing on the quantum of collective damages claimed. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the class action. The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

At the Supreme Court of Canada, the leave application was heard by Cromwell, Wagner and Côté JJ. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs and the conditional application for leave to cross-appeal was dismissed, with Côté J. dissenting.

Compare jurisdictions: Arbitration

“The new ACC Newsstand is one of the best e-resources that I have encountered in 21 years of practicing Employment Law. The information is timely, helpful and easy to navigate. Thank you for offering it and please continue it indefinitely!!”